|
|
Sacrifice of the Mass
The word Mass (missa)
first established itself as the general designation for the
Eucharistic Sacrifice in the
West after
the time of
Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), the early
Church
having used the expression the "breaking of bread" (fractio panis)
or "liturgy" (Acts 13:2, leitourgountes); the
Greek Church
has employed the latter name for almost sixteen centuries. There
were current in the early days of
Christianity
other terms;
-
The Lord's
Supper" (coena dominica),
-
the
"Sacrifice" (prosphora, oblatio),
-
"the
gathering together" (synaxis,
congregatio),
-
"the
Mysteries", and
-
(since
Augustine),
"the Sacrament of the Altar".
With the name
"Love Feast" (agape)
the idea of the sacrifice of the Mass was not necessarily connected.
Etymologically, the word missa is neither (as
Baronius
states) from a Hebrew word, nor from the Greek mysis, but is
simply derived from missio, just as oblata is derived
from oblatio, collecta from collectio, and
ulta from ultio. The reference was however not to a
Divine "mission", but simply to a "dismissal" (dimissio) as
was also customary in the
Greek rite
(cf. "Canon. Apost.", VIII, xv: apolyesthe en eirene), and as
is still echoed in the phrase
Ite missa
est. This solemn form of leave-taking was not introduced by
the Church
as something new, but was adopted from the ordinary language of the
day, as is shown by
Bishop Avitus
of Vienne as late as A.D. 500 (Ep. 1 in P.L., LIX, 199):
In churches
and in the emperor's or the prefect's courts,
Missa est
is said when the people are released from attendance.
In the sense
of "dismissal", or rather "close of prayer", missa is used in
the celebrated "Peregrinatio Silvae" at least seventy times (Corpus
scriptor. eccles. latinor., XXXVIII, 366 sq.) and
Rule of St.
Benedict places after
Hours,
Vespers,
Compline,
the regular formula: Et missae fiant (prayers are ended).
Popular speech gradually applied the ritual of dismissal, as it was
expressed in both the Mass of the Catechumens and the Mass of the
Faithful, by synecdoche to the entire Eucharistic Sacrifice, the
whole being named after the part. The first certain trace of such an
application is found in
Ambrose (Ep.
xx, 4, in P. L. XVI, 995). We will use the word in this sense in our
consideration of the Mass in its existence, essence,
and causality.
I. THE
EXISTENCE OF THE MASS
Before
dealing with the proofs of
revelation
afforded by the
Bible and
tradition, certain preliminary points must first be decided. Of
these the most important is that the
Church
intends the Mass to be regarded as a "true and proper sacrifice",
and will not tolerate the idea that the sacrifice is identical with
Holy Communion.
That is the sense of a clause from the
Council of
Trent (Sess. XXII, can. 1): "If any one saith that in the Mass a
true and proper
sacrifice is not offered to
God; or,
that to be offered is nothing else but that
Christ is
given us to eat; let him be
anathema" (Denzinger,
"Enchir.", 10th ed. 1908, n. 948). When
Leo XIII in
the dogmatic Bull
"Apostolicae
Curae" of 13 Sept., 1896, based the invalidity of the
Anglican
form of consecration on the fact among others, that in the
consecrating formula of Edward VI (that is, since 1549) there is
nowhere an unambiguous declaration regarding the Sacrifice of the
Mass, the
Anglican
archbishops answered with some irritation: "First, we offer the
Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; next, we plead and represent
before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross . . . and, lastly, we
offer the Sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which
we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This
whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take part with
the priest, we are accustomed to call the communion the Eucharistic
Sacrifice". In regard to this last contention, Bishop Hedley of
Newport declared his belief that not one
Anglican in
a thousand is accustomed, to call the communion the "Eucharistic
Sacrifice." But even if they were all so accustomed, they would have
to interpret the terms in the sense of the thirty-nine Articles,
which deny both the
Real Presence
and the sacrifical power of the
priest, and
thus admit a sacrifice in an unreal or figurative sense only.
Leo XIII,
on the other hand, in union with the whole
Christian
past, had in mind in the above-mentioned Bull nothing else than the
Eucharistic "Sacrifice of the true Body and Blood of Christ" on the
altar. This Sacrifice is certainly not identical with the
Anglican
form of celebration.
The simple
fact that numerous
heretics,
such as Wyclif
and Luther,
repudiated the Mass as
"idolatry",
while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body and Blood of Christ,
proves that the
Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially different
from the Sacrifice of the Mass. In truth, the Eucharist performs at
once two functions: that of a sacrament and that of a sacrifice.
Though the inseparableness of the two is most clearly seen in the
fact that the consecrating sacrificial powers of the
priest
coincide, and consequently that the sacrament is produced only in
and through the Mass, the real difference between them is shown in
that the sacrament is intended privately for the sanctification of
the soul,
whereas the sacrifice serves primarily to glorify
God by
adoration,
thanksgiving, prayer, and expiation. The recipient of the one is
God, who
receives the sacrifice of His
only-begotten
Son; of the other, man, who receives the sacrament for his own
good. Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ
is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the
Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can
even be preserved in
monstrance
and ciborium.
Finally, this difference also deserves mention:
communion under
one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas,
without the use of the two forms of bread and wine (the symbolic
separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the
victim, and therefore the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take
place.
The
definition of the
Council of
Trent supposes as self-evident the proposition that, along with
the "true and real Sacrifice of the Mass", there can be and are in
Christendom
figurative and unreal sacrifices of various kinds, such as prayers
of praise and thanksgiving, alms, mortification, obedience, and
works of penance. Such offerings are often referred to in Holy
Scripture, e.g. in Ecclus., xxxv, 4: "All he that doth mercy
offereth sacrifice"; and in Ps. cxl, 2: "Let my prayer be directed
as incense in thy sight, the lifting up of my hands as evening
sacrifice." These figurative offerings, however, necessarily
presuppose the real and true offering, just as a picture presupposes
its subject and a portrait its original. The Biblical metaphors -- a
"sacrifice of jubilation" (Ps. xxvi, 6), the "calves of our lips (Osee,
xiv, 3), the "sacrifice of praise" (Heb., xiii, 15) -- expressions
which apply sacrificial terms to sacrifice (hostia, thysia).
That there was such a sacrifice, the whole sacrificial system of the
Old Law bears witness. It is true that we may and must recognize
with St. Thomas
(II-II:85:3), as the principale sacrificium the sacrificial
intent which, embodied in the spirit of prayer, inspires and
animates the external offerings as the body animates the soul, and
without which even the most perfect offering has neither worth nor
effect before
God. Hence, the holy psalmist says: "For if thou hadst desired
sacrifice, I would indeed have given it: with burnt-offerings thou
wilt not be delighted. A sacrifice to
God is an
afflicted spirit" (Ps. I, 18 sq.). This indispensable requirement of
an internal sacrifice, however, by no means makes the external
sacrifice superfluous in
Christianity;
indeed, without a perpetual oblation deriving its value from the
sacrifice once offered on the Cross,
Christianity,
the perfect religion, would be inferior not only to the Old
Testament, but even to the poorest form of natural religion. Since
sacrifice is thus essential to religion, it is all the more
necessary for
Christianity, which cannot otherwise fulfil its duty of showing
outward honour to
God in the
most perfect way. Thus, the
Church, as
the mystical
Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which
surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of
Golgotha or
its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice
of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made
available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to
them.
If the Mass
is to be a true sacrifice in the literal sense, it must realize the
philosophical conception of sacrifice. Thus the last preliminary
question arises: What is a sacrifice in the proper sense of the
term? Without attempting to state and establish a comprehensive
theory of
sacrifice, it will suffice to show that, according to the
comparative history of religions, four things are necessary to a
sacrifice:
-
a
sacrificial gift (res oblata),
-
a
sacrificing minister (minister legitimus),
-
a
sacrificial action (actio sacrificica), and
-
a
sacrificial end or object (finis sacrificii).
In contrast
with sacrifices in the figurative or less proper sense, the
sacrificial gift must exist in physical substance, and must be
really or virtually destroyed (animals slain, libations poured out,
other things rendered unfit for ordinary uses), or at least really
transformed, at a fixed place of sacrifice (ara, altare), and
offered up to
God. As regards the person offering, it is not permitted that
any and every individual should offer sacrifice on his own account.
In the revealed religion, as in nearly all heathen religions, only a
qualified person (usually called
priest,
sacerdos, lereus), who has been given the power by commission or
vocation, may offer up sacrifice in the name of the community. After
Moses, the
priests authorized by law in the Old Testament belonged to the
tribe of Levi,
and more especially to the house of
Aaron
(Heb., v, 4). But, since Christ Himself received and exercised His
high priesthood,
not by the arrogation of authority but in virtue of a Divine call,
there is still greater need that
priests who
represent Him should receive power and authority through the
Sacrament of
Holy Orders to offer up the sublime Sacrifice of the New Law.
Sacrifice reaches its outward culmination in the sacrificial act, in
which we have to distinguish between the proximate matter and the
real form. The form lies, not in the real transformation or complete
des |